Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Everyone, welcome to the September 10th, 2025 meeting of the Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission. I'd like to call the meeting to order. If you could please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Recording in progress. Mr. Moran is not with us this evening, so I will call the role and let's see if I can get it right. Uh Mark Favaza here. Jeff Moore here. Lisa Sharing here. Sherry Bilderbach here. John Ritter here. Matt Foreman

here. Uh John Nurburgger was be attending via Zoom. I don't believe he's here this evening. And for illness, Carl Carlin here and Hart Nelson is here. Uh we have a quorum. Next item of business is the agenda has been distributed. Are there any adjustments or alterations that need to be made the date?

Uh no, believe we do have a corrected date. Your version may not corrected date has been submitted, but yes, there for a while there was the August date was listed, but we do have a corrected version that's been posted. So, any other changes or corrections that need to be made? Seeing none, any objection to approval by acclamation? And the agenda stands approved. Next item of business, the minutes for the August 13, 2025 meeting of the PNZ Commission have been distributed. Are there any edits or changes that need to be made to those? Any objection to approval by acclamation? Then those minutes stand approved. Next item of business. Are there any citizens wishing to address the commission on items not on the agenda, online or otherwise? Seeing none, we'll move on to old business. First order of old business is PNC 250010. This is the amendment to the comprehensive sign plan for 1234 Hanley Industrial Court for Good Clean Dog. I can see that the petitioner is here this evening. Could please join us again. uh remind us or give us your name, address, and we'll talk a little bit about I know you've been uh in front of us before on what has changed since last month and we'll go into staff report after that. So, please addresses 2513 Elm Drive. As we've talked last month, we went back, we did ask for a smaller mural drawing as a option just to see if that was um more tenable. We also added a rendering from that main driveway on Hanley, which I think Armen requested to help show what that would look like. Um, and I did just send to Whitney, we had I had a misunderstanding on front fascia, the not our preference. We don't like the way obviously do that if that's

all right. Appreciate it. Thank you for those changes. Uh go ahead and go to staff report, please, Miss Kelly.

Um um need to share.

So yes, as the applicant has indicated, um we are here for the comprehensive sign plan for a good clean dog. As you remember, the property already has a comprehensive sign plan that was approved in June of 2024 that required that the main entrance over the main entrance that any tenant can utilize the full panel sign band um provided that includes all information. If they take up more than one bay, they can utilize the second signband with a minor element uh decorative element, but all of the information should be over the front door. It also prohibited any signage on the north and south elevations. Um, and so that's why the applicant is here. She has a number of signs. the provided just a moment ago sign over the main entrance has the good clean dog. Um she could instead again as we had indicated we she could utilize the entire sign band and not just as she's showing here. So yeah, so there um go. She did not, you know, we indicated there could be an decorative element, the dog on the bicycle, something on the other band, and that's not what she would prefer. Um so she's also wishing to keep the spread joy like good clean dog. Um and this is you can see the in the packet the view

for h mirror on long hley industrial is significantly visible. Um, therefore, staff recommends that that sign be eliminated to be consistent with the prior approval. She did provide a a a drawing of soap bubbles that would also be approximately 304 square ft um that you can see here. The good clean dog was 360 square feet. And then uh again they are asking to utilize the LED lighting that would be exposed bulb within the car side fetch and then have strips for the lighting information on that was not provided. The applicant has indicated that the sign company said it's hard to they are not able to provide a rendering of what that would be to accurately reflect a nighttime view. Um, I would like to remind the board that our sign code for illuminated signs under section 410.125 illuminated signs prohibits exposed reflective type bulb or incandescent light which exceeds 40 watts shall be shall says no exposed shall be used on the exterior surface of any sign in in such a manner as to expose to the face the bulb, light or lamp to any public street or adjacent property. Therefore, we are also recommending that this be revised to eliminate the use of an exposed LED LED bulb to be consistent with the code. Um, she has not she is still proposing she has not revised any of the signs on the rear elevation that include the 25 square ft pullup, the

64 square foot Rosie mural and the two four square ft drop off pickup signs. um in that elevation. The front door does have services rendering in hours of operation which we don't have an issue with that. But at the prior meeting there was a number of discussion for consideration and so I put those in off um bullet points in the staff report that the good clean dog and dog grooming could be placed over the main entrance not broken up along two bays to be consistent with the prior comprehensive plan. elimination of the mural on the north uh elevation to be consistent with the prior action, the elimination um the use of LED strips on the property and modification to the curbside fish to eliminate the use of an exposed bowl. And then there is if the board wishes to keep the dog grooming and good clean dog on one elevation if they want to see some other striping or something on the remaining elevation that's direction that needs to be provided and then a discussion on the number of signs on the rear elevation.

All right. Thanks Miss Kelly. So basically understanding the changes made since last time primarily what I believe I'm understanding is we have an option that's been provided where both where the lettering for this is for the front face the lettering is on over single bay although I understand that that's not the petitioner's preferred uh or um orientation but that is uh that has been provided and then there is an alternative provided for the mural on the sidewall um the bubbles which is did I understand correctly that is a smaller total square footage than the initial.

It is slightly smaller. The initial mural was 360 square feet and this one is measuring at 304 square ft. All right. Um and then but no changes to rear signage the lettering LED lettering and I will be asking some folks on the commission for probably a little bit more explanation on that. Make sure I'm understanding properly. And I know we had talked briefly about the car side fetched sign as a directional sign um as well last time, but that looks like that's still there. Okay. Yeah. Um All right. Thank you. Uh any then we'll go over to the commission. Mr. Carlin.

Um thank you. I I will not um repeat the comments last time because I still feel the same way. um lamenting that I understand the previous discussions we had on the building relative to that comprehensive site plan and how this does not necessarily comport with that. So I understand that and nevertheless I lament that we can't find a way to make it possible because I also understand the position. I think yours, I might be paraphrasing here, but you're trying to put a business in a place where you're going to need visibility to pull it off and the frontage of this building does not favor that effort. So, you have things you have to do to get people around the corner, which I understand. So, I think we approved or conceptually approved the little circle sign that pops out last time, right? So, that's a part of the effort to get you around the corner. Um, I know it might not be your preference, but maybe getting the two names over the front door as we're asking for is actually helping you because it's still pushing the energy toward the corner. So, you know, you don't need to really spread it into that other because it has no bearing on your actual business, right? So, if that one, if you can give that one up, it might actually be helpful to you. Um, the mural is I understand it's challenging what we've said. I like it. I think it's helpful. I think it's good for your business. So, I'd like to find a way. We may not. But what I really want to talk about then is the is the the the lighting on the the the canopy. Um I understand that the the code says no neon. Okay, fair enough. No neon. Um but we're also talking about exposed bulbs which this LED strip would not be. Right. So

well she said she can clarify, but my understanding was within the car side fetch it would be exposed within that area. The LED strips that are mimicking around would be covered, but the car side fetch would still have the exposed bulbs. Do you know the name of the product? Because I'm pretty sure I know the name of the product. Like a faux LED. It's a faux neon LED product. So my understanding is that it's not an exposed bulb, but I'm not an expert, so I don't want to argue semantics.

Well, I but I would concur with that. So in other words, I'm not aware of any LED product that has an LED exposed. They're always covered by a lens. They're always covered by something with with, you know, waterproofing or for exterior proofing. So, what we're talking about is a series of LEDs in a line that are then covered by an acrylic shell, right? The idea would be that they would be in the center of those letters to mimic a neon appearance, but obviously they're not.

So, because I'm looking for ways to approve this, if we're going to parse the legal language, these are not exposed bulbs. Period. Right? They're covered bulbs. So, so I, you know, I'm I I this I I do lighting as part of my job. I will I will I will take this to my grave as a statement that I I support. So, so they they are not exposed bulbs, right? And they're not neon. And so, and this is a product that I myself have used, you know, and so I don't I don't see that that's in conflict with the signage requirement personally. And I would make that argument and I can bring in the product cut sheets if you'd like. Um, and otherwise, I would think it would meet the intent. And then relative to the additional square footage of signage on the back, again, I don't know how to get around the requirements, I think it's appropriate for what you're trying to do and but I said that last time, so that's all I have for now.

Other thing I would add is I also I should have included it. I did also take pictures from Strawner from the that it's you really can't see just to be frank, you really can't see from Straner the back of that building because it's the very furthest bay. So yes, the canopy will be visible, but none of that signage is visible from Strawner, anything that's on the back of the building. And I think one of the things that I didn't really process until today, if you're looking at this, the car side fetch face, excuse me, faces north. Yes. Away from Straner. It's on the opposite.

Away from Strawner. And in even in your renderings and with that small sign, you're looking for a one-way traffic flow coming in from Henley Industrial, not from Straner. Straner is kind of your outbound side. And to your other point, there's multiple dumpsters, power poles. There's a lot of stuff between you and Strashner. Do we know just a real question? Sorry. On Mr. Carlin's point, I'm looking at the language of the uh ordinance right now and do we know the total wattage of this light fixture? No, we don't. Yeah, I think has not been provided.

Yeah, since LEDs are often very low. That would be my question is it is a 40 and above or exceeding 40, excuse me. So 40 and below would not fall under this. Um which may also be of uh of importance. So uh Mr. form. Anything else there? The renderings are showing the north facade accurately that you're filling in masonry. There's a large garage door that we'll be filling in with brick.

Correct. And so your sign is depicting where you have the spread joy like dog hair at the east side. And then there's a second rendering where it shows only that bit of the elevation being painted and it shows the new window with the patched brick with the existing louver. And even looking at Google Earth, I don't know if that side of the building's been powerwashed or not, but it looks pretty rough right now. Not to to confirm.

So I think to Mr. Carllin's point for the overall aesthetic of the building. I think it's an improvement to paint the entire north facade. And if there's a compromise even just with the graphic bubbles, I think that would actually given I'm looking at it on Google Earth how terrible that facade looks at the moment. Any other questions? Mr. Foreman, Mr. Morton. Sorry.

Seems to me that the five words uh spread joy like dog hair is could be considered a sign. Yes, it is. But I would think that the bubbles are a decoration. And I don't see that as signage. paint. I remember a similar discussion about whether library and brick was a sign or decoration recently at this commission. But yes, I think that u that is less clearly evident of uh labeling something. I guess I would say so I support uh Matt's observation. Paint the whole side of the building and include the bubbles.

Hey Mr. Moore, Miss Builderback. I will look this way as well.

Thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I wasn't able to attend the last meeting. My apologies. Uh, yeah, the mural I view it as kind of like the billboard discussion that we had when we had the library discussion and it was something I brought up at the time as far as precedence. I think this makes an even worse precedence. No offense to your business plan intended. Um, but I think it's it would be really bad for the future of what we want to see in Brentwood because once somebody does it, everybody's going to want to do it because then well, why should they have it and we can't do it? It's something that we hear all the time like at the planning commission. And the other thing I think that we need to keep in mind is that Hanley Industrial Court may not always be in an industrial court. when we look at the comprehensive plan um and even going back as far as like 20 years and like when the UD district for example had been created which is now I sad to say back in the day at this point uh the vision was for Hanley Industrial Corps to eventually become something much more than what it is now. So that the approach that we had taken over the the many years was that any opportunity that we had to improve a situation and also allow it to be friendly to the the future possible segueing of the purpose of the area um on a project by project basis that came through with this overall theme of where things were trending to be and what the overall vision of the comprehensive plan was. Um I think that we have to look at each project that comes into the Hanley Industrial Court. uh no matter how welcome in that light. Uh so that we need to consider what will it be not just for Hanley Industrial Court but also as a precedent for other areas in the city like for this particular sign to which I I think that definitely should not be done. Um I the bubbles I think technically is considered signage. Um so I'm I'm not a huge fan of that idea either. I do think it needs to be painted. Uh the other that whole wall

and the other thing I want to mention um is that uh when we talk about the neon we're I'm I'm all into parsing words and I parse words a lot. I used to be a lobbyist for a living. I'm a recovering lobbyist, right? Uh the whole energy and purpose behind the sign code when it was passed was to not have anything that looked like neon signage. And we did it for a reason. It wasn't actually very much of a a hard discussion for the all the folks who who worked on the plan. It's possible we might need to look at revising the sign code to uh prohibit additional materials that would mimic a like a faux neon is meant to look like a neon signage. So walks like a duck, quacks like a duck probably is a duck even though it's maybe like technically not a duck. Maybe it's a goose, right? They're in the same family. Um so I'm not a huge fan of that. I mean, the fact that it's on the back of the building is a little bit better, but I think we also need to think about that sometimes uh because of the changing nature that we'll have over time in the Hanley Industrial Court that all the things that we're talking about, oh well, there's this there right now and there's that there right now, it may not always be there because the intention was to allow for this transitional area like within Hanley Industrial Court. And I also am a huge uh proponent of like directional signage and letting people know where to go. And obviously that's a big thing with the business. Um I think as long as you have signage that lets people know that you're there. I mean we have GPS nowadays. Everybody plugs it in their phone or it's programmed into your car and that we have no problem getting there. Some sort of signage just to let them know go to the back and where to pull in. But I think most people aren't going to be driving along with their dog and say, "Oh, I think I'm just going to drop in today." And so they're going to come looking for you. But you'll still get that front edge with the signage if you make good use of those the front signs like they were talking about. Um you'll still get the people to be aware

that you're there so that they'll go home and pull out their phone and be like, "Okay, like who is this business? I have a dog." You know, and then they'll make an appointment and then they'll like come by, you know, and that sort of thing. So I definitely um the the billboard uh aka mural in my mind uh definitely needs to go. I I still think the bubbles even though like personally I mean they don't bother my aesthetic sensibilities I think that it still opens that door. So I do have some concern about that as as far as a precedent and I do have concern u for the the spirit of the sign code and the intention that it was all put together about the faux neon signage. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Miss Builderback. Other questions for members of the commission. One thing I'll note and we had some members who were here last time and absent is you know one of the balances and we talked about is um having the recency of the comprehensive sign plan we had for this property which I think we've talked about in terms of over the bays um and then there was the challenge where in fact we did have signage on the side of the building that we asked to be removed um and so I think that is one of the challenges that we're trying to to um I guess I will say that was legacy it was certainly not wellmaintained at that point and so perhaps different to what we're discussing today but that's something that obviously the commission needs to consider. Um, I do want to balance that with I think that what I've heard from a number of folks too is the sense of place. And so, Miss Builderback, I take your point of what we're trying to accomplish here. I do think that the industrial court has changed over time. And you take a look at the kind of businesses are going in there. And I do understand that it is a a fairly common trend as I believe Mr. Carlin mentioned in other places where some of these industrial parks are being turned into much more lively um senses of place which I think is what the the uh petitioner has given today. Uh, any other comments from folks? We've talked about this a great deal. Um, anyone else? And then I guess, sorry, Mr. Carlin, please.

Very quickly, one second. I agree with that. And I I agree with with your assessment. I just read it differently. I think this would be a good precedent for what might come in the future because I feel it's exuberant. It's it's it's youthful. It's fun. And that might actually help. Excuse me. So, I actually I agree. It's a precedent, and it is changing the area. And I think that's the good thing about it. But I just share really fast just because you weren't here previously just to share some of what our intent was. It obviously it is signage and we hope that it lends people to our brand and to know who we are. But it was absolutely also our intention to make the area more beautiful and to inspire happiness and to make it a brighter and just help the community. So just so that that intention comes across as well regardless of your decision. I just wanted you to hear that from me.

Yep. Miss Perbeck.

Thank you. Thank you. uh relative to um the the happiness and the exuberance and all of that. If you do it here, it's going to be somewhere else. It's not going to just be here. And there also is like a mixeduse discussion and component for this area and thinking about future buildings and what you want to live next to, what you want to drive through. I mean, if we had like a a downtown loft district or something like that, I mean, that might be a little bit different kind of aesthetic than what the general community of Brentwood is. So though I I totally understand what you're saying, I think that if we have that here, it's they're going to want to have it all over Brentwood and I don't think that we can limit it just to here. And I also think based on some of the kind of development that we wanted to bring into this area when we wrote the comprehensive plan and not just the current one, but one that we've had for a long time that's been updated that if we had things like this all over Hanley Industrial Park, that it would be a detriment to attracting that kind of development in in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Any other comments? I think again we'll get to a motion here. One point I will make though is that this is uh and I know Miss Builderback knows this, but for anyone who is watching the recording, this is a comprehensive sign plan review. So, we do have the ability to go outside the sign code. That's the intent of it. Um, so we're not changing the sign code. It would still require a review by PNZ as well as the board of alderman for uh for anything that was going to be future. So, it isn't necessarily precedent setting. Um but uh it certainly could lend weight to that. So uh is there at this point uh we have a petition in front of us. We have staff recommendations and some discussion. Is there a motion? Miss Bilderbach.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recommend move to recommend approval uh of this plan to the board of alderman with the change to eliminate uh the spread joy like a dog hair signage uh to have that that wall painted white. Um, and yeah, that's it. And then the rest of the petition as submitted. Yes, sir. Okay. Um, I do want to put forward, and I'm going to look at Mr. Cronin on this because I don't believe we can specify the color of a wall, but painted as rendered without the labeling perhaps. We can say painted. Uh, yes, we can, but we actually can say about the color.

Painted to match the south side of the building. partially white. All right. Yeah, I don't see that as white is why I was outside two toned. So, if you want us to paint the whole side saying this outside won't that would be different. Oh, it's your motion, Miss M. I just wanted to give me a suggestion. I make a suggestion. Yes, ma'am. that um the mural that the comprehensive plan as proposed with the exception of that no signage shall be on the north or south elevation as prior approval. Um and but it can be painted a neutral color to be consistent with the rest of the building.

Motion so amended. Mr. Moore though, did we address the second bay? Did we address the second uh B? Give me one second. We have a motion. Can we get a second? Then we'll go to discussion. Okay. Is there a second for the motion? Otherwise, motion will fail at that point. If there's no second. Second. There's a second. Any discussion? Sorry, Mr. Moore, please. Sorry. Just trying to Now we're going to fix it. Yep. Amend my motion. Yep. Please amend it.

So, but would you say what you want me to amend? The rendering shows that there are two signs over two retail bays and we discussed that they couldn't have the second sign. So, okay. So, I would also like to amend my motion that they can only have the sign over the one retail bay. Is that correct, Mr. Moore? You talked about the front of the building. Understanding correctly on the front of the building. Yeah. which I think was presented is a uh by the petitioner as a alternative this evening that may not be in the packet but was presented. Okay. So we have a motion. She has to accept the amendment. Accepted.

Seconded. Second. The amendment is accepted. Any other discussion? Did we capture that correctly, Miss Kelly? We are I believe so. There is also a discussion on the use of neon LED to mimic neon. Are we allowing that? I don't like it and I think it's inconsistent with like the concept of what we're trying to go for. It's on the back of the building though per what I said before that could be seen from the future should we end up having any like of the multi-use. Uh but I specifically left it off. I'm willing to amend my motion depending on like the desires of my fellow commissioners. You left it off as in something that would be allowed. Yes.

You did not remember it. Yes. And I think that would be supported by at least some of the commission. All right. So that was an intentional omission. Yes. So we have captured that the signage will be on the U drive through port will be allowed and and I think that that's something that we can talk about in the future relative to the what the actual sign code says so that we can clarify the sign code going forward as new materials come out. Okay. Any other discussion? We have a motion a second. I will attempt to d roll call vote here. Mr. Favaza, yes. Mr. Moore, yes. Miss Sharing, yes. Miss Bilderbeck, yes. Mr. Ritter, yes. Mr. Foreman, yes. Mr. Carlin,

yes. It's unanimous. Uh, that will then be taken forward to the board of alderman. On which date, Miss Kelly? Oh, October. I forget. The first meeting in October. Yes. That will go forward. We are recommending body. They will make the final decision. Um, and thank you to the petitioner. Welcome to Brentwood again. I know that you already got the cup and you are moving forward. And thank you to the commission for the discussion this evening. That is October 6th. October 6. Okay. I'll

All right. Next item of business is old business. This is PNZ 250011. This is a text amendment to section 40021. accessory uses and structures to clarify language regarding solar energy systems as an accessory structure. That's a mouthful. Uh we discussed this during our last meeting. I believe there was some feedback from the commission and uh some changes made. So I'll turn it over to you, Miss Kelly, for a staff report on what updates have made. It looks like you hedged by um allowing ARB and the commission to uh to evaluate these and make exceptions. How odd. uh please staff report.

So there was some concern on some of the wording in the prior uh rendition. So what we've proposed here is that solar energy systems including uh that the wording instead of solar collectors should be actually considered solar energy systems to be more industry standard. Um we um a solar energy system may be located on any roof face. All roof mounted connectors and metal trim are dark bronze or black to minimize the glare and to blend in with the existing roof material. Um shall not project vertically above the peak of a slope roof to which it is attached. Shall be flush mounted to the roof in a manner that respects the architectural features of the structure including roof line, colors, material or shall otherwise demonstrate through a rendering that equipment shall be screened from view through the use of a parapit or other means unless approved by either the architectural review board or the planning and zoning commission whichever is the appropriate review. This is similar to what was approved by our architectural review board for residential. So, we're just uh trying to be consistent as commercial projects are reviewed at the planning and zoning commission. So,

any questions from commissioners on this? Mr. Foreman,

a comment. We do see a lot of these in the architectural review board. So, that's based on that experience. That was some of the commentary that was embedded within the language. Um, my understanding is also at least residentially we're not we're actually not allowed to deny them installing it because of state statutes, but we can impact the aesthetic. Well, um, my understanding from the attorneys is that state statute does say that ARB and the Z planning and zoning commission can provide standards. Um, as it impacts this neighboring properties and the look and feel of the community. Um, but it is best because of the way the sun might hit a roof, it might it's best if it could if it's best to be on the front elevation, we should take that into consideration.

Yeah. And I do think uh I will say uh with the despite my comments earlier with the pace of technology changed and that sort of thing as we just discussed earlier about LED lighting for example and and the change in technology I think it is useful to have the ability to review it. So it makes good sense. Other comments or questions from commissioners? Is there a motion? And I apologize. I think the staff report still has the prior dates on the motion.

There's no one in the room and I get lazy when there's no one in the room. Is there any member of the public wishing to address the commission on this subject? When I don't see anyone here, I All right. Seeing none, sorry. Now, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval of the text amendments to provide clarifying language for solar energy systems as an accessory structure as discussed during the September 10th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting. You have a motion by motion by Miss Sharing. Is there a second? Second by Miss Bilderbach. Roll call vote, please. Uh, Mr. Favaza, yes. Mr. Moore, yes. Miss Sharing, yes. Miss Bilderbach, yes. Uh, Mr. Ritter, yes. Mr. Foreman, yes. Mr. Carlin. Yes.

Post unanimous. Uh that will be recommended to the board of alderman at the October 7th was it? Yes. Sixth meeting. All right. Uh alder manic report. Seeing no alderman director's report. Miss Kelly.

Um we are anticipating an application for the October meeting. So please mark your calendars. Um, and uh, just so you know, the board of alderman did deny the cup for the seven brew, in case you haven't heard. Um, it also approved the sign plan for the 2001 South Hanley um, B uh, Hanley Point, sorry. Excellent. Thank you. That update. Uh any other items of business for the good of the order? If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Is there a second? Second.